Archive for January, 2010

I was attracted by the title of this journal as I browse the website. I really wonder how the “Negro” dialect influences Scott Brown’s work. The author firstly expressed several similar points between Scott Brown and Barack Obama and then described his view about the dialect of Brown.

First of all, he pointed out the resume similarity between Barack Obama and Scott Brown. They have close age and they are both lawyers. They both got married with a woman with high-powered career. Their daughters and their politic life all have surprisingly parallels. I pretty agree with this portray. Actually, when I first found out those similarities, I was shocked and even confused. How could two “strangers” lead such a similar life?

Moreover, the author thinks that the “Negro” dialect of Scott Brown would bring a tough job for him. First, he conveyed his opinion that the dialect may bring tough time of speech. Also, the author generally has an instinctive reaction to “terrible” dialects. In my opinion, however, I feel quite uncomfortable with the writer’s idea. People living in different cultures having language barrier is normal. I think the author view this as a problem is totally wrong and egotism. There are lots of people with different dialects, so how can the author define “success” only regarding to the dialects?

Generally saying, I think the author has prejudice about the dialects. Also, education does not show out from the dialect but from the exact information conveyed by the speaker.

Just after I heard the news about the Christmas bombing, I saw this journal. This is not an article that contests the terrorist but an article that conveys the author’s thinking about the new rules the US government put up for the security service every time after being attacked.

It’s the author’s opinion that the truth about airplane security measure is that the US government did so bad at detecting the guilty and so good at collective punishment at innocence.

For one thing, passengers were prohibited to use restroom on the Washington-New York shuttle few years after the 9/11. The author expressed his idea that this rule would never deter a person who was willing to die but caused trouble and intolerance for innocent people. The result of this rule finally was scrapped as people never felt safe underneath the rule.

For another, the author thinks that the endlessly ineffectual security service is ridiculous and just supposes to give a feeling of safe. The fail of detecting the guilty leaded to the rule or trouble put on the innocence.

As to me, I extremely agree with his opinion that the US government should pay more attention on detecting the guilty than adding the seeming endless rules. In my opinion, All the new and revised security measure since 9/11 are more about convincing passengers of the feeling of safe in the knowledge that the government is doing “something” to avoid another occurrence than about actually stopping another incident. Every time after the attack, the flight becomes a hassle and suffering. Some security measures are really unnecessary in my eyes. Will the terrorist answer the truth when you are asking questions? That only caused hassle on the innocence.

Obama illustrated his new strategies in his “Afghanistan Speech”. Self-evidently, he is a good speaker as his speech is powerful and trustful. The solution of the issue about Afghanistan has been protracted for a long time. Due to the journal about Obama’s speech, on one hand, the author contested some of Obama’s claims and questioned some doubts but on the other hand, he also pointed out some good points of his speech.

The first point is Obama’s statement that our troop will start to come back in July 2011. How can he announce the date which is just a year after the extra 30,000 troops are planned to arrive in the country? Maybe a year is not even enough for making the new strategy into work as the number of troops is still continually increasing since George Bush. In the author’s opinion, this statement has put Obama himself to a tight spot and the assurance is worthy to be doubt. Also the argument reminded people of Bush’s claims of “”coalition of the willing” during the Iraq war. In my opinion, however, I think the setting of the deadline can give the Afghanistan people encouragement and convince them of the ability of the US government.

For another part, the author agrees that Obama’s refusing of setting up goals beyond responsibility is a terrific and stupendous part of the speech. The author commended his counterview against terrorists and his clearly realization of the ability and responsibility of the US government. I strongly agree with that. I think Obama’s this declaration is not just because of the financial case of the US government but also because of the realizing of exact responsibility of the US government.

Generally, in my point of view, this speech is successful and worth acclaiming. Barack Obama did a good job in obtaining gathering American people’s mind and setting strategies due to the ability of American government.